Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the semantics of groups but does not describe return format, pagination behavior beyond the schema-derived page/pageSize hints, or what happens when an entity has no groups or is invalid. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the single clarifying detail — what groups are — earns its place by disambiguating the catalog concept. Nothing extraneous is included.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is lean. Pagination is only implied through the parameter descriptions, and return-value structure is left unspecified. It is adequate for a simple read operation but could explain result format and the pagination contract more explicitly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% — all five parameters are individually described, so the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal value by clarifying what counts as an 'entity' (via tagOrId context) and what 'groups' means, but it does not enrich parameter syntax or format beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the groups one entity belongs to'), and clarifies what groups are (free-form x-cortex-groups tags). It reads distinctly from sibling tools, none of which obviously list groups. It lacks an explicit statement of what it is not, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description defines groups as x-cortex-groups tags, offering useful context that implies a catalog-organization use case, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. Among siblings there is no obvious substitute tool, so the omission is minor but still leaves usage to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.